BuzzerBeater Forums

Also, he should think about higher shotblocking, especially since they decreased the cost of it recently.

OMG totally agree. hooray for you

he is starting with low JS, so I would build him as a center, not PF. It would waste too much time to bring up JS.

and agree again.

Second, I don't like the 16/16/14/10 build

wait, are you reading my mind?
yer i agree. less IS, more driving. 16ID is probably ok IMO, but more SB than 10. Sacrifice ID 1 or 2 points for extra SB. id like to see SB at 15 personally

Second, I don't like the 16/16/14/10 build

wait, are you reading my mind?
yer i agree. less IS, more driving. 16ID is probably ok IMO, but more SB than 10. Sacrifice ID 1 or 2 points for extra SB. id like to see SB at 15 personally

I would prefer 17-16-10-17. It will cost almost the same like the one with 16/16/14/10, but you will have a better defender. RB only makes him expensive. And you have time. A shot blocker doesn't have to get every ball after the first miss. He can block the opponent a second and third time. As long as your defense is strong enough you can play with lower RB. It's just a matter of time until you get your hands on the ball. High SB+low RB=more ORs for your opponent+more DefRebs for you. ;)

Thank you sir! Obviously, I think you're right too :)

Hey Nightmare, always enjoy reading your posts :)

I'm interested in your opinion on REB for big men. Although Wolph's ramblings were unreadable and tiresome, I bought into his REB philosophy. He often claimed that rebounding is the most important skill for a C/PF, and I later started noticing that my tranee with somewhat lower rebounding did slightly worse in matches.

Basically:
1. Ratings win matches
2. REB may have the biggest influence on C ratings(possibly less for PF).
Conclusion: Cs need Reb.

I will try serching the TL to see about high REB centers ratings, compared to low REB centers ratings.

A C is not a PF.
For Center, I have two skillsets:
1) IS+IS+RB
2) ID+RB+SB

Let's take a closer look at the second option. You have a real beast under the basket. He protects your rim, defends everyone who tries to finish with a close range attack and he will get most of the rebounds. So, why do you need the same player on PF? Why not taking someone with high ID and high SB (for defense) and average RB (around 9-11) and let the Center do the rebound work? With this you will still have enough space for IS and your PF will stay under 150k. If your opponnent misses a shot and gets the rebound, he has to play again against these two defense specialist.
If you have an IS-ID-SB PF you can give him JS, JR and DR and he will be on both ends of the floor a force.
I'm not saying RB isn't important, it is. But you can maximise it's value with the right players and the right tactic.

So, now you have a game against someone else. You take a look at his roster and stats and you see that his PF is the better rebounder. So what do you do? You just switch the defense. Your PF defends the C and your C the opponents PF. With this you can prevent a rebound missmatch. Both, your PF and C will perfom very well as rebounders. And because both of your bigs are exellent defenders you don't have to think about a missmatch.
An old BB post on this matter:

Look at two things, both the team overall rebounding rating, its not useless... but second order I would look at the opponents starting players and see who gets more rebounds, and assume that they are the stronger rebounders, and think about setting your lineup in a way to minimize that difference.

In the end you have to decide what do you need at which position. You have only a certain cap space and you can't have 10 players with 20 in every skill.

One little thing: RB is an individual skill. That means if you play m2m your PG will compete against the opponents PG. Your PG has RB 5, your opponents RB 2. So who will perform better? ;) Same goes for all the other positions, even in a zone.

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 8/1/2014 12:28:29 PM

i also think that if you have higher SB on your players, you can player 2-3 zone more and thus off-set the lower individual rebounding.

So your defensive set becomes a factor as well.

if you play 2-3 the amount of assisted and not defended field goals will be higher and you have less occasions where you can challenge a shot.

isn't that going to be more a result of the offense that the opposition picks?

No. not on BB.. 2-3 is useless on BB for some teams. IN my opinion 2-3 takes luck tp use.. Its really a wrong scripted made defense. For starters if it was a zone then where are the steals? Its seem more like 2-3 man to man than 2-3 zone.

2-3 man to man you'll get eaten alive by pocket mid range shooters in the open ranges all night, on BB that is was happen.. IN 2-3 zone that does not happen , because the defense shifts cover all spots,HI Od is working so is the ID of the Bigs. On BB I have never seen mass steals in 2-3 zone, . The defense in 2-3zone on BB to me is slim to none or the players are making the best effort of their lives on the court not to play defense for some teams.. Maybe with Gdp it can work.


That just me, I cant speak for anyone else. That's for them to come out and say and show. I think is sure a lost defense to play.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/2/2014 10:36:21 PM

the GDP isnt going to change the fundamental of it.

BB have always come and said "2-3 zone works if your team has good shot blockers"

they even went out of their way to reduce the cost of shotblocking on salary.

Yet the majority of people don't have SB still.

So i think its a bit hard to say that 2-3 is lost, when people haven't implemented it correctly according to BB's.